80D is here

I, John Sheehy wrote in post #17939005
I just checked out ISO 25,600 read noise and compared it to the 70D and 7D2 on DxOMark, and it seems to be same as the 7D2 at the pixel level, but potentially slightly better at the image level with more pixels.

Scratch that. For some reason I thought 7D2 ISO 25600 red noise was higher than it is. The 80D has significantly more read noise than the 7D2 at ISO 25600, and not a whole lot better than the 70D. The character of the noise, however, is very good on the 80D.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17939185
That argument is very old at this point. Video isn't preventing other features and it doesn't get in your way if you don't want it. In fact video has spawned some interesting sensor designs that have greatly improved live view still shooting, and created some very capable and high IQ inexpensive new lenses.

May be old but true. You don't need video in a camera just to have live view shooting. You can take out the video and still have that technology. Take out the video especially the programming and there is lots of room for more still shooting programming. I mean a sensor/chip can only hold so much. Like putting in the technology to shoot at different croppings, is that in a camera yet? If I want all my shots to be 8x10 crop then there needs to be a choice on the menu to select 8x10, 5x7, 11x14, etc, what crop you want your files to be. I know a place that makes a mirror with cropping lines but to actually shoot the crop you want would be nice. Lots of stuff to take the place of video programming.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17943154
Scratch that. For some reason I thought 7D2 ISO 25600 red noise was higher than it is. The 80D has significantly more read noise than the 7D2 at ISO 25600, and not a whole lot better than the 70D. The character of the noise, however, is very good on the 80D.

How do they compare at ISO 1600 to 6400? Or is it a fairly linear issue, whereby if the read noise is high(er than the 7D2) at 25600, it'll be higher at lower ISOs?

My reason for asking is that I wouldn't consider ISO 25600 to be particularly usable on FF, let alone a crop; so ISO 1600-6400 is more "meaningful" to me.

Shooting wrote in post #17943167
May be old but true. You don't need video in a camera just to have live view shooting. You can take out the video and still have that technology. Take out the video especially the programming and there is lots of room for more still shooting programming. I mean a sensor/chip can only hold so much. Like putting in the technology to shoot at different croppings, is that in a camera yet? If I want all my shots to be 8x10 crop then there needs to be a choice on the menu to select 8x10, 5x7, 11x14, etc, what crop you want your files to be. I know a place that makes a mirror with cropping lines but to actually shoot the crop you want would be nice. Lots of stuff to take the place of video programming.

Certainly there's a valid argument that resource (more likely engineers' time, rather than flash/ROM space these days) would get allocated to video features, vs adding more stills features.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17943148
Well, that's a good policy, if it works and doesn't interfere with spontaneity. There is no reason that you should have to target a specific exposure index when you shoot.

There are some particularly hard reasons why f/11 at 1/125 and ISO 100 won't produce the same image as f/4 at 1/30 and ISO 200; so there is reason why a specific exposure index needs to be targeted for the intended optimum results in a given situation.

No processor can read your mind. No processor can know that you want a particular tone in the image to reproduce at a particular brightness level and whether you care how other tones reproduce.

Why shoot at ISO 43 when your scene allows for 100?

RDKirk wrote in post #17943206
There are some particularly hard reasons why f/11 at 1/125 and ISO 100 won't produce the same image as f/4 at 1/30 and ISO 200; so there is reason why a specific exposure index needs to be targeted for the intended optimum results in a given situation.

No processor can read your mind. No processor can know that you want a particular tone in the image to reproduce at a particular brightness level and whether you care how other tones reproduce.

Isn't it a case though that the ideal exposure system would allow you to choose an aperture (for desired depth of field), a shutter speed (for desired blurring or freezing of motion, as appropriate), and the camera to then capture the scene with your brightest desired highlight just under clipping (that area/region/brightness could be chosen like choosing an AF point).

How those tones are then reproduced is the job of post. The job of the camera is to capture the scene with the best possible quality; if that's ISO 43, 100, 200, so be it.

Shooting wrote in post #17943167
May be old but true. You don't need video in a camera just to have live view shooting. You can take out the video and still have that technology. Take out the video especially the programming and there is lots of room for more still shooting programming. I mean a sensor/chip can only hold so much. Like putting in the technology to shoot at different croppings, is that in a camera yet? If I want all my shots to be 8x10 crop then there needs to be a choice on the menu to select 8x10, 5x7, 11x14, etc, what crop you want your files to be. I know a place that makes a mirror with cropping lines but to actually shoot the crop you want would be nice. Lots of stuff to take the place of video programming.

Programming takes so little room especially compared to the amount of memory available in very small packages. For example, you can get 256gb on a micro-sd card (those memory chips that are the size of your pinkie nail). That is SUBSTANTIALLY more than any of the programming that comes with your camera. We already know how big the firmware is on the camera, and it is quite small when compared to just about anything else you run, like a single app on your phone. The firmware is measured in megabytes, not gigabytes.

You are simply asking for more features that you personally would like. Video is not preventing user cropping/printing settings in camera, Canon engineering is preventing it by not coding it for you because they either don't think it is a good feature, or they haven't gotten to it yet.

And Canon has supported different aspect ratios in-camera for a while now, but this is supported in live view. Otherwise the camera isn't going to know where on its physical sensor you actually want to crop off to give you the aspect ratio you want. With live view, it gives you the aspect and you frame within that, and your shot will then produce a JPG of that area, but your raw is still the full scene. You just can't have 4:5 right now, which gives you your 8x10.

However developers have managed to do this with Magic Lantern. They add 4:5 and 6:7. Not only that, they pack even more functionality in to a camera than Canon and at no detriment to the video features. It is not "lack of ram or memory" in the camera due to "all that video support" not giving you features you want, it is simply an act of prioritizing features and development resources at Canon, and determining which features will increase revenue and which will not.

sploo wrote in post #17943193
How do they compare at ISO 1600 to 6400? Or is it a fairly linear issue, whereby if the read noise is high(er than the 7D2) at 25600, it'll be higher at lower ISOs?

Well, it's lower at base ISO, so it has to cross somewhere.

Usable for what? I've never subscribed to the idea of ISO limits. Quality depends on lots of factors, like whether you need fine details, especially color ones; how much you need to crop and/or magnify, what color the lighting is, etc.

RDKirk wrote in post #17943206
There are some particularly hard reasons why f/11 at 1/125 and ISO 100 won't produce the same image as f/4 at 1/30 and ISO 200; so there is reason why a specific exposure index needs to be targeted for the intended optimum results in a given situation.

No processor can read your mind. No processor can know that you want a particular tone in the image to reproduce at a particular brightness level and whether you care how other tones reproduce.

I don't think that you quite grasp what a RAW capture is. Barring any camera-specific defects, exposure affects only the amount of photons you collect; There is noise, too, and the higher the exposure, the less of it there is relative to the signal. If white and gray squares are in the scene, and there are 8x as many photons per pixel in the white square, there are also 8x as many if you "underexpose" by 2 stops, or "overexpose" by 1.22 stops, as long as the data doesn't clip. There are no qualities besides noise, clipping and posterization (only possible in the deepest shadows of lowest ISOs) at different tonal levels at a given ISO setting. Contrast and color saturation do not vary in the range, except as affected by noise, and we avoid noise by using a lower exposure index than intended for the ISO setting. If you really want it, you can add much nicer-looking noise in software.

Less noise, of course. This allows you to display your image slightly larger before noise gets distracting, or to sharpen details more before noise gets distracting.

sploo wrote in post #17943214
Isn't it a case though that the ideal exposure system would allow you to choose an aperture (for desired depth of field), a shutter speed (for desired blurring or freezing of motion, as appropriate), and the camera to then capture the scene with your brightest desired highlight just under clipping (that area/region/brightness could be chosen like choosing an AF point).

Now that would be convenient - Auto-ISO-ETTR. Not difficult to program if they can already provide zebra stripes at different levels approaching pixel saturation. You just set how close you want to go to full-well and have 95% of that start blinking in case the "auto" needs an assist (or a LUT says it's better to keep the ISO lower and raise it in post, based on known ISO noise characteristics for the sensor at hand).

sploo wrote in post #17943214
How those tones are then reproduced is the job of post. The job of the camera is to capture the scene with the best possible quality; if that's ISO 43, 100, 200, so be it.

As long as the selection of "optimum" is based on overall noise rather than max (amplified) signal - once the shutter and aperture have been set, the number of photons is fixed and the rest is electronics...

Shooting wrote in post #17943167
May be old but true. You don't need video in a camera just to have live view shooting. You can take out the video and still have that technology. Take out the video especially the programming and there is lots of room for more still shooting programming. I mean a sensor/chip can only hold so much.

Like putting in the technology to shoot at different croppings, is that in a camera yet? If I want all my shots to be 8x10 crop then there needs to be a choice on the menu to select 8x10, 5x7, 11x14, etc, what crop you want your files to be. I know a place that makes a mirror with cropping lines but to actually shoot the crop you want would be nice. Lots of stuff to take the place of video programming.

Take out what? A couple of Kb of code? Even if that allowed the use of less RAM you're talking a few dollars. And there's no lack of memory space on the 70D. MagicLantern is a complete replacement firmware for the 70D (and several other Canon models) that comfortably fits in memory alongside the OEM firmware AND STILL has enough room for different overlays to represent whatever crop format you like.

But these software-generated crop marks only work in Liveview. Because these cameras are SLR's, the eye-level viewfinder is optical, not electronic. So anything displayed in the viewfinder has to be etched on the focusing screen, or projected via out-of-frame indicators (such as shutter speed, etc). In some cameras you can get custom focusing screens, but they don't offer the ability to change from one crop format to another. It's a physical constraint, not a software constraint. If you want to change the viewfinder crop on the fly you need a mirrorless camera with an electronic viewfinder.

Just noticed the top dial has a C1 and C2... helpful little upgrade...

I'm still wondering about 27 auto focus points at f/8. I did read the specs and it looks like that is the case.... so better than the 7D2 and IDX?

I am looking forward to the shipping of the 80D's next week. In a month or so, we should know how it works in the field.

I think the f/8 is only for specific lenses with teleconverters.

bumpintheroad wrote in post #17943420
I think the f/8 is only for specific lenses with teleconverters.

I believe centre focus point is good for many lenses. Only a few select Canon lenses will AF using the various focus points